JUDGMENT 1. This is an Appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of Mr. Justice Nalini Ranjan Chatterjea in a suit for recovery of possession of land by which he has reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and restored the decree of the Court of first instance. The substantial question in controversy between the parties is whether a document described as an amalnamah and granted by the landlord to the tenant on the 28th of August 1889 was admissible in evidence. The Appellant contends that the document is in essence an agreement to lease and is compulsorily registrable under sec. 17 of the Indian Regis ration Act. The Respondent contends, on the other hand, that it is not an agreement to lease but is a document of the description mentioned in cl. (h) of sec. 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1877. 2. Now, the document first describes the land intended to be demised and sets out the boundaries. It then states that "according to your prayer, I (that is, the landlord) grant this amalnamah to you for erecting houses after reclaiming the said homestead. You will dwell thereon on payment of rent Rs. 15-1-10 gundas from year to year to our Sarkar. You will abide the survey and settlement. Within a month on executing a kabuliyat you will take a pattah which I shall grant." It is plain that this is an agreement to lease. The land to be demised is accurately defined ; the rent is settled and is made payable from year to year, and the lease is apparently a lease in perpetuity ; under these circumstances we must hold as was ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Syed Sufdar Reza v. Amzad Ali I. L. R. 7 Cal. 703 (1881), that the document was compulsorily registrable. 3. Reliance, however, has been placed upon the case of Dwarka Nath v. Ledu Sikdar I. L. R. 33 Cal. 502 (1906), in which it was held that an amalnamah was not compulsorily registrable. The terms of the document in that case, however, were very different from the terms of the instrument now before us, and it is not necessary for us to express an opinion upon the question whether or not upon the terms of that document the case was correctly decided. 4. As regards cl. (h) of sec. The terms of the document in that case, however, were very different from the terms of the instrument now before us, and it is not necessary for us to express an opinion upon the question whether or not upon the terms of that document the case was correctly decided. 4. As regards cl. (h) of sec. 17 of the Indian Registration Act, we observe that it is clearly inapplicable. That clause lays down that a document not itself creating any title of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to immoveable property but merely creates a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create such title, is not compulsorily registrable. The document mentioned there is one which does not create title, but merely creates a right to obtain a subsequent document upon the execution and registration of which the right is to commence. In the case before us there is no room for controversy that the parties intended that as soon as possession was taken under the document of the 28th August 1889, the title of the grantee should commence. As a matter of fact no subsequent document has been executed and it is not the contention of the Respondent that his title has not yet commenced by reason of his failure to tender a kabuliyat to the landlord and obtain from him a pattah. 5. The view we take is supported by the decision in Narayanan Chetty v. Muthiah Servai I. L. R. 35 Mad. 63 (1910) and is not opposed to the decision in Champakalatika Mitra v. Nafar Chandra Pal 15 C. W. N. 536 (1910), where an amalnamah was produced at the instance of the landlord and no question was raised as to its admissibility. The result therefore is that this Appeal is allowed, the decree of Mr. Justice N.R. Chatterjea reversed and that of the Subordinate Judge restored. This order will carry costs throughout.